....as today's thorium-power proponents point out, that idea never took hold primarily because thorium-fueled reactors don't provide the
opportunity to make and collect materials that can be used to build nuclear bombs. It made no sense to Cold War-era policymakers to devote resources
to developing thorium-based technology, given that plutonium, especially 239Pu, an ideal and much-needed bomb material at that time, could be readily
produced in nuclear reactors fueled by uranium (which consists of roughly 99.3% 238U). So thorium never made it into mainstream nuclear technology and
has never been commercialized even though it is more abundant, potentially less expensive to process, and boasts other key advantages relative to
uranium....

In addition to the nonproliferation argument, thorium advocates quickly rattle off a slew of other reasons to push forward with thorium-based power.
For example, the element is roughly four times more abundant than uranium and accessible via mining techniques that are simpler and less costly than
the ones used to extract uranium. According to James Hendrick, a recently retired U.S. Geological Survey scientist who spoke at the Washington
meeting, estimates of U.S. reserves of the metal are on the order of 300,000 metric tons —about 20% of the world's supply—much of which is found
in Idaho's Lemhi Pass.

Not only is thorium more plentiful than uranium, it also does not need to undergo a costly and complex enrichment process to render it usable in a
nuclear reactor. Uranium needs to be enriched because the desirable fissile isotope 235U comprises just 0.7% of the total material. Thorium exists in
nature almost entirely as 232Th.... Proponents also point out that although waste products from thorium usage are radioactive, radiotoxicity persists for just tens of years rather
than thousands of years as uranium waste does. They also stress that, unlike coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants, thorium-fueled power plants
would not emit greenhouse gases such as CO2 and could generate power almost continuously, unlike solar- and wind-driven systems....Chem Eng. News

Why can't they build a massive pipe past our atmosphere into space and just pump carbon dioxide out into space?

The reason this isn't an option is they KNOW this is a scam! they also are well aware of the fact that the real problem is TOO LITTLE CO2!

I am not kidding. The earth has been sequestering CO2 for millions of years and plants have had to adjust to an CO2 starved atmosphere.

C3 plants can not tolerate CO2 starvation especially when combined with drought. C4 are better adapted to lower levels of CO2 and CAM plants have the
best adaptation. Since CO2 is a vital plant food plants must open the stomata wider when there is not as much CO2. This means more water is
transpired and therefore a low level of CO2 increase the water requirements.

....Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the Co2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm... I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a
tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn[/v] entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) ... photosynthesis can be halted
when CO2 concentration approaches 200 ppm... (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere
by diffusion...
Source

And yes I know the Ice cores say the CO2 was down around 180 PPM

Plant Stomata react more accurately to CO2 concentration, as has been determined in experiments. (More CO2 means fewer stomata, as plants exchange CO2
more efficiently) Historical collections of leaves can be used to determine past CO2 levels. In most cases, researchers are bound by the modern
paradigm, and get confused by the low stomata counts of the past. Stomata cannot measure very high CO2, but only indicate high C)2. Higher CO2 levels
over 325ppm are underestimated. When reading stomata research, you need to filter out the ruling paradigm when the problematical ice-core data is
used to calibrate the stomata, when it should be the reverse.
Rapid atmospheric changes are well known from past reconstructions:
See www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Funnily enough at the Shell awards they had an entrepreneur that had developed a hydrogen fuel cell that used CO2 from the air to power it and had no
waste products except water. Shockingly Shell didnt fund him and went with two projects that supported the CCS pprogramme

I do agree though there
are thousands of alternative energy systems that have been proved to work but no interest from the worlds governments as they are in big oils pockets.
Is a disgusting system and we are all the losers paying more and more for petrol for our cars and gas for our homes

Carbon dioxide emissions must decrease to nearly zero by 2040 if global warming by the end of this century is to be held to 2 °C. But we
may well miss that target. A pilot plant started up last fall at Squamish, British Columbia, is testing a backup plan: sucking carbon dioxide
directly out of the air.

The article has lots of pictures of the plant. One item that jumped out at me is the article states "[carbon dioxide] only makes up 0.04% of the air
we breath". So for all the CO2 doom porners out there, does not seem like a lot. Anyway, instead of starting at zero he repurposed already existing
machinery which keeps cost down. He estimates the cost will be about $100 per ton to scrub the air. The excess CO2 is being vented back to the
atmosphere.

For those interested in Thorium reactors, here is one that is doing a 5 year run to determine fuel runs/amounts. They have had a reactor going since
2011. Thor Energy (Norway), company website

Now to get both of these set ups together. Thorium reactor to burn fission waste and an inexpensive CO2 scrubber. Something-anything--needs to be
done.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.